Bear of Love

While again I'm not gonna assume that Zipped is Town, I don't really think Grizz's inquisition of Zipped is "solid." It seems like someone just trying to latch on to something really minor on D1 in order to "gotcha" Zipped (especially when Zipped has plenty of other dumb things he's been doing today).

It's early D1. Most of the discussion has been people doubling down on talking only about rooms and skating, or posting votes based on "well I have a bad gut feeling I guess". When we have so little intel, got to poke at everything that stinks.

While again I'm not gonna assume that Zipped is Town, I don't really think Grizz's inquisition of Zipped is "solid." It seems like someone just trying to latch on to something really minor on D1 in order to "gotcha" Zipped (especially when Zipped has plenty of other dumb things he's been doing today).

Oh well, what the hell

While again I'm not gonna assume that Zipped is Town, I don't really think Grizz's inquisition of Zipped is "solid." It seems like someone just trying to latch on to something really minor on D1 in order to "gotcha" Zipped (especially when Zipped has plenty of other dumb things he's been doing today).

Grizz is being legit with his timeline at least. That's not me saying I agree with his conclusions, I'm on Zipped right now simply because he keeps arguing for us to use what looks to be a good room early, but I'm not sure Grizz is scum. Or at least I'm not sure there's enough here to consider him suspect yet.

Bear of Love

I'm just kind of frustrated right now since every game since Monopoly I've had reads like "oh this is like scum grizzly in monopoly D1' or similar (tbf Hecht and Splinter neither said that), so I feel like my meta is screwed until I prove that it's just how I play D1, not an inherent scumtell.

Nothing that I can really prove except dying to show it though, and not interested in aiding scum interests.

I'm just kind of frustrated right now since every game since Monopoly I've had reads like "oh this is like scum grizzly in monopoly D1' or similar (tbf Hecht and Splinter neither said that), so I feel like my meta is screwed until I prove that it's just how I play D1, not an inherent scumtell.

Bear of Love

But the type of comment kinda like "you are calling out everything and seeing what sticks" which is what people have used as evidence of me being scum for multiple games now. So it's kind of frustrating to deal with every time :P

1. Dubs voted Zipped and called out Zip's behaviour.
2. Zipped post right after 'self correcting' said behaviour.
3. I asked if Zipped posted said post due to Dubs' vote.
4. Zip said no, he said he saw another person voting him.
5. I told Zipped that nobody had voted him before.
6. Zipped said he thought someone had voted him, references that 'I thought Dubs voted me in previous post where he mentioned me'
7. I remind Zipped that Dubs never mentioned him before the vote.

It's small things, but it feels like Zipped kept doubling down on more little lies for some reason.

Thanks. The reasoning is sound, i just don't know if i see it as a straight up lie by itself, could be a simple mistake on zipped's part. On the other hand, there is a lot of useless noise coming from him and that does not read like town to me. It might be goofs but at some point you're just playing yourself.

Voting patterns are the only hard evidence most of town gets to look at. If you encourage people not to vote, you are actively harming town. The same applies to anyone jumping onto a bandwagon without having their own specific reason. It's too easy to wait for someone else to make an argument, then latch onto it without any culpability.

But it is poor play not to have a vote on someone early on day 1. Some of the votes may be useless in the grand scheme of things but pushing the issue means that scum cant just sit around and do nothing. It forces them to do something and justify it in some way.

The entire point is that D1 there barely is any "issue" to push unless we get lucky. And sometimes we have "issues" like the Zipped situation, where I see no reason to push further, and barely anything else.

Voting patterns are the only hard evidence most of town gets to look at. If you encourage people not to vote, you are actively harming town. The same applies to anyone jumping onto a bandwagon without having their own specific reason. It's too easy to wait for someone else to make an argument, then latch onto it without any culpability.

But it is poor play not to have a vote on someone early on day 1. Some of the votes may be useless in the grand scheme of things but pushing the issue means that scum cant just sit around and do nothing. It forces them to do something and justify it in some way.

What also forces scum to do stuff is by poking and prodding people being quiet.

All early votes come down to is "It was early D1 and I just made a joke vote or voted for someone for the stupidest of reasons (ie because they chose a different coloured room)"

That's how votes get defended later on.

I'm fine with people voting or not voting early in D1 but to call it poor play seems like a stretch (especially with less than 24 hours into the actual day) and even more funny when you're busy calling others out for 'lazy votes'

The entire point is that D1 there barely is any "issue" to push unless we get lucky. And sometimes we have "issues" like the Zipped situation, where I see no reason to push further, and barely anything else.

Let's say he's scum. On one hand, it's great that we got a scum, but his teammates probably jumped on the bandwagon since it was such a sure thing, and we'll have no way to tell them apart from the people who are town. If he's town, it's even worse. We lost a townie and now have like 1/3 of the game under suspicion for voting him, while the scum could keep their votes wherever they wanted, because no scum was at risk.

If you split the votes more, we might catch scum trying to push other candidates to save zipped(if he's scum), or if he's town, piling on him last minute to save a different scum candidate.

We gain so much more info by not bandwagoning. I'm really concerned about anyone who doesn't see the value in encouraging players to think for themselves.

I voted on Z-Beat mainly because I just had bad feelings about him, given that it's day 1 and there isn't much to go on. If there was a reason founded on evidence it's that he's made 28 posts (almost as many as zipped) but I can't see any stance he's taken, it's all just going back on forth on mechanics or fluff, this isn't a strong feeling, but it's the strongest I've got.

My favorite cake is pie

i think your dreaming if you think that this will actually help ascertain much of a read on anyone that does this this early in the game.

If we have a room that will help deal with low activity posters the worst time to use it would be early in the game when we have an absolute surplus of activity and posts to already wade through, when people noticeable acting inactive always still gets overlooked due to the sheer amount of other people being active and diverting attention.

Use this when the player count has diminished, when the input of those inactive players actually matters more, when we cannot afford players that are still infuriating question marks, and in keeping with your point, when they have a far more consistent history of inactivity to have to turn around from.

I think at this point in the game any room is a valid choice because imo they're all equally vague and down to personal interpetation. I'm sticking with the red room because I think I like early game pressure, and I hope my reading is right, but I won't expect anyone else to buy into it. The glass part-- if it's bad, it needs to be dealt with early.

That being said, anything to help weed out inactive players is good, but I don't think we should plan the late game around our own interpetations of the room stuff. That could wind up disastrous. Only focus on what's good for the next day.

I have a legit question, why are we deliberately trying for a bad room? We have options for some good rooms, since we do not know how the game works exactly (only speculating) why are we trying to "Save" the good rooms when we could get seriously hindered by going directly into a bad room. Maybe this bad room locks us out of a good room?

I think it would be a good idea to vote Teal room! Give everyone, WHILE WE HAVE THE MOST PLAYERS, a blatantly obviously good room. If it is BP it would keep more of us in the game longer ( which actively benefits town because we have the most players), and actively hinder killing roles.

Why are we deliberately trying to get what seems to me punished instead of actively promoting something that, to me, would only hurt scum/threats to town?

I don't like the tone of this post. "It's obvious guys we should do what *I* say! It's so OBVIOUS WE SHOULD DO IT NOW! (But I'm only speculating)."

Zippy is just making me nervous for all sorts of reasons. Especially with the constant switching of move votes.

Vote: Zippedpinhead

But on the other hand, maybe there's some mechanic at play, some reasons to be so blatantly lynchable D1 that we're not fathoming. We could be playing right into his hands.

I feel like I'm late to the party with the Zippy stuff. Apologies if I'm being redundant. I'm commenting as I'm reading, not with hindisght. Such are the problems of waking up with a backlog because you're in a screwy timezone.

That being said, I don't know why the runners would impliment a game mechanic where the goal is to be lynched D1, those requirements would be so easy to enact. I'm doubting my own conclusions here, as I'm reading.

In general, Bastard means that information provided by the moderator may not be accurate. Sometimes implicitly. In the case of a jester/Fool, it's bastard because all of us have have an expectation that nobody wants to get lynched, and will behave accordingly. Including someone who DOES want to get lynched just fucks the game up.

To assume that the “shield” referenced is a game wide bulletproof is the most obvious conclusion, but why stop at an obvious conclusion?

There must be some people who know more about color than the rest of us, and they CARE what color room we go to because it will give them benefit, like powering up their not-yet-charged roles. A whole lot of players have said nothing that was not directly relating to this mechanic, and trying to push the conversation purely that way is suss.

Godfather, you never answered the question I asked you - what has you in here on your most hated day phase, working so hard?

Stopping at obvious conclusions helps push your narrative. There are plenty of reasons to do that.

So upon further thinking, Zipped is saying a lot of things without saying anything at all and voting for many rooms all at the same time. "Hey look at me look at me look at me". It gives us a target, but the problem is it gives us an only target because it drowns out every other disucssion. It's not a townie play.

If we don't lynch Zipped today, he's going to plague the rest of the game. Let's pop that pimple and get on with it.

So upon further thinking, Zipped is saying a lot of things without saying anything at all and voting for many rooms all at the same time. "Hey look at me look at me look at me". It gives us a target, but the problem is it gives us an only target because it drowns out every other disucssion. It's not a townie play.

I was reading your post mostly nodding in agreement until the last part. I agree it's not town play, and said as much before. But zipped gleefully painting a giant target on his back is precisely why i don't want to lynch him right now. Feels like bait.